On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>> It seems the people that would install the (newer) spacewalk client anyway
>> are the first to object the inclusion of the original RHEL RHN code, and
>> they are the least affected by this change.
>>>> I am trying to understand why that is.
>> I know that you are a fan of multiple repos having different versions
> of packages (and may use priorities plugin). Me not.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. I am not a fan of multiple
repositories, but unfortunately we can't push stuff in RHEL or CentOS.
> An inclusion would also lead to such an situation, and there are no
> real benifits.
I don't understand. Without the (upstream) RHEL RHN client in CentOS
people are forced to use another repository, even when the RHN client
would be sufficient.
Sure there are benefits, if you'd be interested to use CentOS with the
corporate RHN Satellite (to keep RHEL+CentOS infrastructure identical). Or
simply to bootstrap from RHN/Spacewalk to download/install the updated
spacewalk client ?
Why not ?
--
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]